September 29, 2007

I noticed that GES editor Jeremy Myers is posting a new series on his website on the terms “the Christ” and “the Son of God.” In the introductory article, Myers stated:

“I do not yet know where this study will lead.... Many people today teach that the terms ‘Christ’ and ‘Son of God’ refer to the divinity of Jesus. While that certainly has been a popular view in the past, and may be what is considered the ‘traditional’ view, more and more students of the Word are realizing this view does not fit all the Biblical data. However, if in my study, I find that this traditional view best fits Scripture, I will believe and teach it to the best of my ability.”

Please notice that Myers suggested that he has not yet reached a conclusion on the meaning of “the Christ” and “the Son of God.” However, a few sentences later he claims the "Biblical data" indicates that His Deity is NOT conveyed by these terms. The fact is, Myers has already argued that Christ's Deity is NOT involved in these terms as quoted in the latest article, The “Christ” Under Siege, Part 2

Here is an important question for Myers:

Eternal life is conditioned on believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (cf. John 20:31). Since you are uncertain right now, by your own admission, what John means by these vital terms, then how can you say with certainty that you know you have eternal life?

Myers also stated:

“There are certain men out there right now on different blogs and publications calling me a heretic for even proposing such a study.”

We highly doubt anybody called Myers a heretic for “even proposing such a study.” Myers did not cite any examples of such men. Not until late Friday evening, did we even know that Myers was “proposing such a study.”

Myers has already drifted into heresy because he has already argued that someone can believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as “the Christ, the Son of God” without believing in His Deity! Furthermore, there are men sympathetic to the GES “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of the Gospel who believe a lost man can consciously reject the Deity of Christ and still be born again by believing in the name Jesus for eternal life. Myers and Bob Wilkin refuse to discuss or answer questions about this especially disturbing aspect of their evangelism.

It is dishonest for Myers to pretend that he has not already argued for a certain conclusion, and that we called him a heretic for “proposing such a study.” This is not unlike the approach of the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad (sounds like “I’m in a Jihad”). Ahmadinejad profusely argued the Holocaust is a “myth” and held a conference with notable Holocaust-Deniers to build his case. Then when he was recently challenged for making such an absurd claim by the president of Columbia University, he claimed to have only asked for “more research on the Holocaust.” With all due respect, Myers demonstrated the same transparent lack of honesty.

Whether or not Myers concedes these titles convey His Deity, we believe his lack of honesty reflects his agenda to continue to deny that a lost man can be saved apart from believing in the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is our hope and prayer that Jeremy Myers will repent of the teaching he has brought, and will return to orthodoxy.

LM & GS

*Later today (10/1) I will be moving this article down the home page to keep Greg's The “Christ” Under Siege: The New Assault from the GES at the top.

In Myers' WARNING is this note, “...makes anything they say worthless to this discussion.”

The balance of the paragraph from which I cited the above contains several lies and/or distortions. He may believe what he wrote is true, but they are demonstrably false. Nevertheless, that final portion may be one of the most telling parts of current Myers’s article.

1) Is the study a façade? Myers wrote, “By way of full disclosure, I do not yet know where this study will lead.”2) Is Myers simply going to bolster his stated position that “the Christ” and “Son of God” do not mean or imply the Deity of Jesus Christ?3) Does Myers have any intention on interacting with those who disagree with his position?

This morning I posted the question below at his blog in the comments thread under his current article. If it disappears or is ignored we have his answer.

Jeremy:

One question, will you interact with Greg Schliesmann or myself in the comment threads at your blog or at mine on these important doctrinal discussions?

If the deletion of all articles and comments at the GES blog is any indication, Myers is likely to follow suit.

***Be sure to read the thread under the latest Christ Under Siege article. There is excellent material there.

A man (KnetKnight) who has come to understand the problems with the “Crossless” gospel made several excellent contributions.

He also included an MP3 of Bob Wilkin speaking at a conference. Many of the misinterpretations of Scripture are on that recording from Wilkin that are used to support the GES "bare minimum" approach to evangelism. Wilkins's discussion of Romans 10:9-10 is especially out of balance.

There is also an example of the old and new GES doctrinal statement. There you ca read how the GES and Wilkin have eroded the statement to accommodate the reductionist interpretation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Deity.

I posted the following to Jeremy, but it did not appear at his blog. I also e-mailed this to him.

Jeremy:

For the record, it appears you are going to block comments and legitimate questions from appearing at your blog. Continue to ignore legitimate questions about what it is you teach and believe. That is the pattern with Wilkin at the GES blog, and now regrettably is your intention. Block and delete all inquiries that expose theological direction you men have taken from the leading of Zane Hodges.

Wilkins’s deletion of the article and comments at the GES blog did more to raise concern among onlookers than anything that was in the comment threads. That single act indicated to many that there must be something wrong with the GES for Wilkin to wipe clean any trace of those articles and comment threads.

It would seem reasonable to me that men who claim the Bible as their sole authority should be willing to discuss their doctrinal positions, which we have pressed for all along. This at least allows for a better mutual understanding, if not reconciliation or recovery. The Bible teaches that doctrine is the basis for all unity and practice. How then can men call for unity in the Free Grace community, while simultaneously being unwilling to openly discuss their doctrinal positions?

What it is you men at GES actually believe in regard to the Gospel, and the treatment of the Lord's titles has been exposed. There is an ever-increasing awareness across a broad spectrum of concerned believers who are now better informed. They can now recognize the errors coming from the GES. Well-meaning, sincere Christians will hold Hodges, Wilkin, and you Jeremy, accountable for this teaching and they will expect answers to their legitimate questions.

You (GES) are going to find it increasingly difficult to dodge inquiries. You are going to find more people at GES conferences waiting to question Wilkin. Churches that have hosted Wilkin are looking back and listening to the recordings of his teaching. They are now seeing that they were introduced to error. They are taking measures to correct the doctrinal errors that were introduced by Wilkin.

You are going to see a continuation of resignations from the GES. You will see a continuation of pastors and venues that once hosted Wilkin, closing their doors to him and withdrawing invitations to have him speak. Can the many pastors and teachers who have departed the GES over the doctrine it holds to all be wrong? Could all of them be in error, not understand or misrepresent the doctrinal positions the GES has taken? With so many good men, that once enjoyed fellowship with you and the GES, withdrawing their fellowship, does that not raise some inkling in your mind that maybe you have been wrong, and may have been deceived?

The GES has ceased to represent what is known as the Free Grace community. For the GES to act as though it is the voice of the FG movement is a facade.

The GES was formed to answer the Lordship error, but in so doing Wilkin and Hodges have bounced off that extreme into an extreme error of their own and swept you up into it. The GES has moved to the outer/extreme edges of the FG movement by virtue of its radical departure from a balanced position on the Gospel. IMO, unless you seek sound biblical counsel from good men you trust outside the GES, your slide into greater heresy is not over.

As for my part: I am going to keep the spotlight fixed on the twin errors and Lordship Salvation and what has come to be known as the “Crossless” gospel. Lordship is error by addition; your position is error by subtraction.

We remain hopeful that you will one day be recovered from the heretical and strange teachings coming from Zane Hodges. We hope and pray that you can be returned to a fruitful ministry outside of the GES, which under Wilkins’s leadership, has departed from the faith once delivered (Jude 3).

New From the Author

I have written the revised & expanded edition of In Defense of the Gospel to provide the biblical answers to Lordship Salvation. There are areas where one must balance soul liberty and Christian charity and agree to respect different views. The gospel, however, is not one of them. The works based theology of Lordship Salvation and its advocates must be vigorously debated, and biblically resisted. May God protect unsuspecting believers and the lost from the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation.

Followers

Copyright Notification

No part of this blog's articles may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means-electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise-without the prior written permission of the author(s), with the exception of brief excerpts in magazine articles and/or reviews.

Disclaimer

As a blog, this venue is open to comments by persons of differing opinions. The opinions expressed herein by various contributors do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of In Defense of the Gospel, or its owners.

Although we indulge differing opinions, we do not condone, and are not responsible for, any false or misleading statements of a libelous or defamatory nature. See 47 U. S. C. sec. 230 (c) (1).

Any slanderous remarks posted herein will be removed immediately upon notification of the offended party of specific untrue statements contained within a posted comment.